either from the liberal appeasers andnself-deluding “negotiators” or from thenmassacred remains of their liquidatednopponents—in El Salvador, Nicaragua,nand an)where else they are interested innabsolute political control. They do notnwant to negotiate with a legitimatelynelected go’emment in El Sal’ador, withnthe opposition in Nicaragua, which hasnbeen illegitimately deprived of any civilnand human rights, nor with anybody,nperiod.nAnd if the doleftil American liberalnDemocrat were ever Inclined to musterna bit of knowledge and the mental agilitynthat’s traditionally associated withnkeeping the Western mind free fromn.suicidal fumes, he/she would reach fornthe holy scrolls written in blood bynSoviet slaughterers and Cuban torturersnabout the rearing of their minor gangstersnin the Central American isthmus,nand in these writings discover whynnegotiations between them and us arenimpossible. We believe that free will,nhuman dignity, political fairness, andnjustice are the preconditions for a betternsociety. They believe in merciless,ndeadly, all-encompassing oppression asnthe only means to make a society better.nThis chasm between beliefe is proclaimednby our opponents with a booming shout,nin the most thunderous and stridentnpromulgations, with a sound so blaringnthat everyone in the entire world cannhear them. Everyone, that is, except thenDemocrats in Congress, the editorialistsnin XhcNew York Times and WashingtonnPost, and the National Council ofnChurches clergy whose fine consciencesnare disconnected from the supreme andntimeless Christian virtue—the pursuit ofntruth. nnThe Ostrich ChicnAs the main reason offered for notnhonestly and fairly discussing the Rev.nJesse Jackson’s real message (as it wasnpropounded during the Democraticnprimaries), our liberal, fair, honest, andnimpartial press claims that what he andnhis proselyte, Mr. Farraklian, said wasnChronicles of Culturen”only” black rhetoric, an oratoricalnornamentalism devoid of factual meaning,nHow^ever, w’hat Mr. Farraklian said,nand what is by now common knowl­nedge, was far away from biblical )n ocantions of damnation, burning in hell, thenOld Testament kind of transcendentalnvengeance: he openly promised a verynmodern sort of reglemeiit des comptes,nof revenge that is obtained through thenbarrel of a gun. In a larger sense, he askednfor a sort of the Night of Long Knives fornanyone who had the temerity to stand innthe way to power of a demagoguenanointed by the most obscure mandaten—that is that of a minority group’snfanaticism, which is sustained not by anyndemocratic legitimacy but by a powerthirstynpolitical gang dead set on gettingnto the top—no matter what the cost.nActually, Mr. Jackson’s smug complacencynin accepting the backing of suchnhenchmen and “our” media’s corruptnliberal insouciance in playing it downnare nothing new. Referring to Mr. Farrakhan’snrhetoric, the Rev. Jackson toldnTime: “I immediately recognized it asnreligious metaphor”—and Time, thatnbeacon of specious liberal objectivity,nthough armed with its own formidablenchecking department, accepted the Rev.nJackson’s words at their face value.n”Metaphor, schmetaphor …” would htnthe more prudent response from anresident of what the Rev. Jackson callsnnn”Hymietown.” Not that long ago, Lenin.nStalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and a score ofnminor practitioners of that figurativenessnof speech were saying the samentypes of things; the wise hberals in thenWest smacked their lips, relishing theirnoratory for the sake of pure literaryneffect. Wlien Lenin announced his plannto create a new socialist man from thenbleached bones of the old humanit)’, G.nB. Shaw, the smartest of all those liberalnskeptics, declared that the Soviet murderernwas perfectly legitimate in hisnexquisite eloquence of a people’sntribune who knows how to inspire thenimagination of the masses; today, wenknow a bit more about Lenin’s fertilizingnstyle, which resulted in slaying millionsnand millions of Russians in his gulags fornthe sake of breeding a new humanity.nWhen Hitler promised to eradicatenEuropean Jews, the Western liberalnpress wrote about the inevitable theatricsnof his political movement of whichnbombast is the only substance. “He doesnnot mean it..,” wrote the organs ofnliberal conscience in London and NewnYork, He did.nSo once again we have someone whonspeaks publicly in those rasping cadenzas,nin that inimitable style of an infuriatednideologue who cleverly erasesndistinction between spectacle andnsuperstition, for whom perspiration is anvulgar prop of pop-heroism and who atnthe climax of the boorishness of his pitchngenuinely does not know whether henpreaches truth or just wallows in his ownnpsychosomatic orgasm instantly merchandisednfor voyeuristic mass-consumptionnby “our” media. And what doesnthe liberal press have to say about thenphenomenon? “‘ITie most gifted orator innAmerican politics”; “Charismatic publicnspeaker”; “Spellbinding presence”; “Thenmaster of overheated oratory of blacknchurches and revivalist meetings,”nThe last characterization is the worstnfraud. There’s passion, often frenzy, innblack churches, but they ser’e as exhortationsnto redemption, penitence,ndeliverance. Words like “racism,” “retribution,”nand “setting the accountsn